An article in the New York Times health and science section today carries several revealing details indicating that doctors and scientists are extremely wary of the TSA’s use of full-body “backscatter” X-ray scanners.

The article details an account from pregnant Yolanda Marin-Czachor, a 34-year-old mother and teacher from Green Bay, Wis., who says:

“one of the first things my doctor said was: ‘Do not go through one of those machines. There have not been any long-term studies. I would prefer you stay away from it.’ ”

Explaining that the machines operate a narrowly focused beam of high-intensity radiation very quickly across the body, the article also notes:

David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center, says he worries about mechanical malfunctions that could cause the beam to stop in one place for even a few seconds, resulting in greater radiation exposure.

[…]

John Sedat, emeritus professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco, believes that the effective dose could be 45 times as high as the T.S.A. has estimated, equivalent to about 10 percent of a single chest X-ray.

Scrutiny over radiation exposure was heightened recently following apparent efforts by the TSA to cover-up a “cluster” of cancer cases amongst scanner operators at Boston-Logan airport. According to FOIA documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), when Union representatives in Boston discovered a “cancer cluster” amongst TSA workers linked with radiation from the body scanners, the TSA sought to downplay the matter and refused to issue employees with dosimeters to measure levels of exposure.

The documents indicated how, “A large number of workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease.”

[NaturalNews] Millions of Americans have long suspected that the so-called “mainstream media” is big-time controlled, whether selectively or institutionally. A recent New York Times story not only substantiates that belief, it proves just how controlled the messages are that are coming from those who mean to rule over us. What’s more, the story demonstrates that most major media sources are complicit in the packaging of information the public is “allowed” to hear.

The revelations may not necessarily be groundbreaking news to many Americans who already suspected they weren’t getting unfiltered and unbiased reporting, though the extent of control over the information reaching the public from the major campaigns may surprise many.

But the revelations should certainly be disturbing to voters who are trying to make choices based on altered or incomplete information.

Of course, that’s the point. Full disclosure would mean giving a rival something to campaign for (or against), so it’s understandable for a candidate to want to carefully control his or her message.

Where it becomes shameful is when the media willingly goes along.

Sorry – You can’t print that

Consider the re-election campaign of President Obama. According to the Times, quotes from the candidates often come back to them from the campaign headquarters in Chicago “redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.” They are emailed to reporters who have beenallowed, essentially, to interview campaign officials, but only under the caveat that “the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.”

In a different age, perhaps, such a restrictive requirement might have drawn the ire of a respectable journalist. But no more; today, most “grudgingly” agree to such preconditions. Those who do not agree, it appears, are not given the opportunity to interview.

Once the interview is complete, the scrubbing process begins. The reporters check their interview notes and review tape recorders for the juiciest of sound bites. At that point, the quotes they select are submitted to the campaign for approval.

“The verdict from the campaign – an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script – is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message,” said the paper, whose own reporters, presumably, must subject themselves to the same treatment.

So much for the Old Gray Lady’s long-time mantra: All the news that’s fit to print.

Control from both sides of the aisle

Then again, maybe the phenomenon of pre-packaged quotes and releases is at least partially our fault. Americans, after all, seem to be obsessed with the “Gotcha!” mentality of sound-bite reporting.

But then again, did the mainstream media hook us? After all, they are the ones who have accustomed us to this kind of sensationalism – aren’t they?

“The push and pull over what is on the record is one of journalism’s perennial battles,” the Times said. “But those negotiations typically took place case by case, free from the red pens of press minders. Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.”

Yes, the “media culture” is “gaffe-obsessed,” but only because we’re still reading.

While this kind of quote pre-approval process is standard operating procedure for the Obama campaign, the campaign of Republican Mitt Romney has a quote quality control apparatus in place as well.

The paper said the Romney machine also likes to air-brush quotes, especially when it comes to interviewing his five sons. “Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article,” said the Times.

In a classic understatement, the Times calls this unacceptable practice a “double-edged sword,” because reporters “are getting the on-the-record quotes they have long asked for, but losing much of the spontaneity and authenticity in their interviews.”

And the American people are losing too. If quotes are sanitized, what other information is being cherry-picked, or worse, being left out completely by a mainstream media that is supposed to be the protector of liberties and freedom, not a facilitator for the powers that be?

We may never know what we never know. And that’s the real danger.

Blanket anonymity at ‘new levels’

“It’s not something I’m particularly proud of because there’s a part of me that says, ‘Don’t do it, don’t agree to their terms,'” Major Garrett, a correspondent for the Washington, D.C.-based National Journal, one of the few journalists who spoke on the record about the contextual quote editing, told the Times. “There are times when this feels like I’m dealing with some of my editors. It’s like, ‘You just changed this because you could!'”

“We don’t like the practice,” Times news editor Dean Baquet said. “We encourage our reporters to push back. Unfortunately this practice is becoming increasingly common, and maybe we have to push back harder.”

Needless to say, the Obama campaign refused to allow anyone to go on record for the Times story. The report didn’t say whether the Romney campaign was asked to go on record for it.

But the paper did single out the current administration.

“Under President Obama, the insistence on blanket anonymity has grown to new levels,” the Times reported.

Despite the repeated statements made by United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta which have clearly indicated thatIran is not developing nuclear weaponsand the analysis of the American intelligence community, the heated anti-Iranian rhetoric never seems to let up.

Indeed, it has even been reported by none other than the New York Times that intelligence analysts in America have yet to find any hard evidence indicating that Iran has even decided to construct a nuclear bomb.

American intelligence assessments have continued to be congruent with the 2007 intelligence report which clearly concluded that Iran had in fact completely abandoned their nuclear program years before (scroll to the bottom of the article to read the embedded report).

According to anonymous U.S. officials, this assessment was reinforced by the 2010 National Intelligence Estimate and “it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.”

So, how can the governments of the United States and Israel continue to ignore their own intelligence agencies and nonsensically push forward with the effort to go to war with Iran?

If nothing else, it has become painfully clear that our so-called leaders are ignoring any and all contrary evidence which might weaken their war effort and making the relentless push towards war.

Given that American intelligence agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have concluded that the Iranian nuclear weapons program was likely halted all the way back in 2003 and Panetta himself has debunked the Iranian nuclear myth, it becomes evident that they have no interest in the truth.

To make matters even worse, it appears that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an agency of the United Nations (UN) has now become little more than a tool of the warmongering factions of Western governments.

Recently the IAEA claimed that Iran had actually accelerated their nuclear program, increasing their production of highly enriched uranium and refused to answer some of the agency’s key questions about their program.

In their report issued Friday, the director-general of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, said that their inspectors continue “to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

Apparently Amano and the IAEA know better than one of the best funded and arguably the most powerful intelligence community on the planet.

“As Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation … the agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities,” Amano stated.

To any thinking person, this statement should be laughable. That’s like me saying that my neighbor cannot provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared thirty foot tall spiders in his garage, and therefore I cannot conclude that my neighbor is peaceful.

If the IAEA is worried about “undeclared nuclear material and activities” they should be focusing their efforts solely on Israel, not Iran.

According to Reuters, even though the IAEA’s report was far from conclusive and the preponderance of the American intelligence community has dismissed the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program, the latest report from the nuclear agency “will further inflame Israeli fears the Islamic Republic is pushing ahead with atomic bomb plans.”

“The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency gives added proof that Israeli beliefs are true” about Iran’s nuclear program, a statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said, according to AFP.

My favorite part of that statement is the usage of the world “beliefs,” since that is exactly what it is. It is not based on fact or logic but instead blind faith and a belief that Iran is this bloodthirsty, genocidal nation relentlessly seeking nuclear weapons.

Of course, none of that is true but apparently Netanyahu has no interest in the truth, either.

“Iran is pursuing its nuclear program with no end in sight. It is enriching uranium to 20 percent, totally ignoring demands by the international community,” Netanyahu also said.

Israeli leadership – especially Netanyahu – pointing to the demands of the international community is painfully ironic. Israel regularly rejects the opinion of the international community in their oppression of Palestinians, raids on humanitarian aid flotillas and more.

The White House has also jumped on the report as more fuel for the anti-Iranian fire. They stated that Iran was in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions with their nuclear enrichment efforts, even though their own intelligence assets have said that there is no weapons program.

“When combined with its continued stonewalling of international inspectors, Iran’s actions demonstrate why Iran has failed to convince the international community that its nuclear program is peaceful,” Tommy Vietor, the White House National Security Council spokesman said.

A high ranking Pentagon lawyer argued Wednesday that US citizens accused of having ties to terror groups can legitimately be targeted for assassination.

In a speech at Yale Law School, Jeh C. Johnson, the Defense Department general counsel, also said that US courts do not have the right to review such cases, or pass judgment on decisions taken by the Executive branch on such matters.

“Belligerents who also happen to be U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives,” said Johnson.

According to a report in The New York Times, while not discussing detail of last year’s killing of US born Islamist radical Anwar Al-Awlaki, “Johnson invoked a lawsuit filed by Mr. Awlaki’s father before the killing that had sought an injunction against targeting his son, citing with approval a district judge’s decision to dismiss the case and saying that targeting decisions are not suited to court review because they must be made quickly and based on fast-evolving intelligence.”

“Within the executive branch the views and opinions of the lawyers on the president’s national security team are debated and heavily scrutinized, and a legal review of the application of lethal force is the weightiest judgment a lawyer can make,” Johnson said. “And, when these judgments start to become easy, it is time for me to return to private law practice.”

The US government has long operated a policy of targeted killing against so called enemies of the state. However, it is one thing to be carrying out such targeted killings in secret, it is quite another to publicly proclaim such actions as legitimate.

Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta acknowledged that the U.S. has assumed the authority to conduct targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens on the recommendations of the CIA Director and the Secretary of Defense and pursuant to the President’s authorization.

President Obama followed up those sentiments by publicly defending the US government’s secret killing program.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the CIA, demanding the release of information pertaining to the secret program, and in particular the deaths of accused Al Qaeda leaders Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Kahn, as well as Awlaki’s 16 year old son, in 2011. All three were US citizens.

“Our government’s deliberate and premeditated killing of American terrorism suspects raises profound questions that ought to be the subject of public debate,” Nathan Freed Wessler of the ACLU wrotein a statement.

“Unfortunately the Obama administration has released very little information about the practice — its official position is that the targeted killing program is a state secret — and some of the information it has released has been misleading.” Wessler added.

The ACLU is specifically seeking to uncover a Department of Justice memo that is said by government officials to have provided the legal justification for the killing of a U.S. citizen without due process.

Also in question is a CIA “kill list” that Awlaki is said to have been added to more than a year before he was killed. The ACLU is demanding information on the process by which Americans have been added to the secret list. A previous Freedom of Information Act request for the material was ignored by the government.

“The public has a right to know the evidence and legal basis for the deliberate targeted killing of U.S. citizens,” the ACLU’s Wessler said. “So chilling a power must be opened to public scrutiny and debate.”

MEDIA ROOTS – Upon returning home from his second tour in Afghanistan, Lt. Colonel Daniel L. Davis unloaded several truths that exposed continued deception by multiple senior military officials. The 17-year Army veteran describes, in an 84-page “open-source” report, an increasingly bleak reality for soldiers while chronicling specific episodes of personal gain from top military leaders.

“No one expects our leaders to always have a successful plan,” he explains in a recent summary of the report in Armed Forces Journal. “But we do expect – and the men who do the living, fighting, and dying deserve – to have our leaders tell the truth about what’s going on.”

Prior to informing his chain of command, Davis met with six members of Congress and a New York Times reporter, to submit two documents – one classified and one not – to the Pentagon for internal review. However, upon learning that there would be a delay in the release of the unclassified report, Davis decided to go public last week in the nation’s premier independent military periodical. “How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding?”